In The Human Condition, Arendt claims that Aristotle says that sufficiently advanced technology would mean that the craftsman wouldn't require assistants but concedes that household slaves could never be dispensed with.
Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition, 2nd edition, p122 (emphasis mine):
Aristotle once imagined what has long since become a reality, namely that "every tool could perform its own work when ordered [...]. Then "the shuttle would weave and the plectrum touch the lyre without a hand to guide them." This he goes on to say, would indeed mean that the craftsman would no longer need human assistants, but it would not mean that household slaves could be dispensed with.
Around this section, Arendt references Aristotle Politics 1253b30 - 1254a18. But my reading of Aristotle contradicts Arendt.
Aristotle, Politics, C.D.C. Reeve translation, p6 [1253b33] (emphasis mine):
For if each instrument could perform its own function on command or by anticipating instructions, and if [...] shuttles wove cloth by themselves, and plectra played the lyre, an architectonic craftsman would not need assistants and masters would not need slaves.
My reading of Aristotle here is that household slaves could indeed be done away with if the technology allowed. It seems like Arendt is claiming Aristotle says the opposite of what he actually says.
Does Aristotle clarify his position somewhere else that I haven't found yet? Is my interpretation of Aristotle incorrect? Is there some other way to resolve this apparent contradiction?